Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. ARCHER then moved that when the accused should be brought to the bar, he be permitted to tender this paper, and that it should be entered on the journal of the House as part of the trial.

Mr. E. EVERETT demanded a division of the tion upon this motion; upon which

ques

Mr. ARCHER withdrew, for the present, the latter clause, and the first part of the resolution was then agreed to.

Samuel Houston was now put to the bar, and informed by the Speaker that he had liberty to present the paper above referred to.

The accused then presented the paper, and it was again read by the Clerk.

The SPEAKER then pronounced the reprimand re-
quired by the vote of the House, for the contempt of the
House, and breach of privilege thereof, committed by
General Houston, in the following words:
Samuel Houston:

You have been charged with a violation of the rights and privileges of the House of Representatives, in having offered personal violence to one of its members for words spoken in debate. In exercising the high and delicate power of ascertaining and vindicating their own privileges, the House have proceeded throughout this investigation, and in relation to your individual rights, with all that deliberation and caution which ought to characterize the dignified and moral justice of such an assembly.

You have been heard in person in your defence; you have been ably and eloquently defended by eminent counsel, and every facility afforded you to place your cause fully and fairly before the House, and to urge upon its consideration matters of principle as well as of fact, in explanation and justification of your conduct.

[H. OF R.

spared its disapprobation and censure, and I the duty of declaring to you the result of it.

I forbear to say more than to pronounce the judgment of the House, which is, that you have been guilty of a high breach of its privileges, and that you be reprimanded therefor, at its bar, by the Speaker; and, in obedience to the order of the House, I do reprimand you accordingly. You will now be conducted from the bar of the House, and discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-atArms. Mr. ARCHER now moved that the paper presented by the accused be entered on the journal of the House. Mr. EVERETT having withdrawn his objection, the motion was agreed to.

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED FRAUD.

Mr. STANBERRY row asked the consent of the House

(required to be unanimous) to submit the following reso

lution:

Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire whether an attempt was made by the late Secretary of War, John H. Eaton, fraudulently to give to Samuel Houston, or to any other person concerned with said Houston, a contract for supplying rations to such Indians as might emigrate to their lands west of the Arkansas and Missouri; and whether said Houston made a fraudulent attempt to obtain said contract; and that said committee be further instructed to inquire whether the President of the United States had any knowledge of such attempted fraud, and whether he disapproved or approved of the same; and that said committee have leave to send for persons and papers.

Objection being made, he moved for the suspension of the rule to allow him to offer the resolve, and demanded the yeas and nays. They were ordered by the House, and, being taken, stood as follows: yeas 169, nays 13.

So the House suspended the rule, and allowed Mr. STANBERRY to move the resolution.

Mr. CARSON observed that when motions were made by members for the appointment of select committees, it was usual, by the courtesy of the House, that the individual so moving should himself be placed at the head of such committee. Mr. C. was induced to hope that the gentleman from Ohio, from the peculiar situation in which he stood, would be induced, by motives of delicacy, to decline such an appointment on the present occasion.

Mr. STANBERRY replied that he was not conscious of having done any thing which rendered him unfit or unworthy to act on such a committee. If he knew any thing of himself, he was capable of acting in such an inquiry with perfect impartiality, and he could very sincerely say, that if the parties proved not to be guilty, no man would take greater pleasure in doing them ample justice.

Whatever the motives or causes may have been, which led to the act of violence committed by you, your conduct has been pronounced, by the solemn judgment of the House, to be a high breach of their rights and privileges, and to demand their marked disapprobation and censure. If, in fulfilling the order of the House, I were called upon, as its presiding officer, to reprimand an individual uneducated and uninformed, it might be expected that I should endeavor, as far as I was able, to impress upon him the importance and propriety of sedulously guarding from violation the rights and privileges secured to the members of this House by our invaluable constitution. But, when addressing a citizen of your character and intel- Mr. POLK observed that he should vote for the resoluligence, and one who has himself been honored by the peo- tion of the gentleman from Ohio. The House would reple with a seat in this House, it cannot be necessary that I collect that he had himself, a few days before, offered a should add to the duty enjoined upon me, by dwelling resolution of nearly similar tenor, but had declined being upon the character or consequences of the offence with put himself upon the committee. He had intended to which you have been charged and found guilty. What- offer such a resolution, under a sense as well of what was ever has a tendency to impair the freedom of debate in due to himself as a friend and advocate of the administrathis House--a freedom no less sacred than the authority of tion, as to the administration itself, and because he felt the constitution itself, or to detract from the independence very confident that the investigation would result in no of the representatives of the people, in the rightful dis- harm to those who were the objects of the attack. The charge of their high functions, you are no doubt sensible, resolution he had drawn, lay at this moment in his drawer, must, in the same proportion, weaken and degrade not only but he had no objections whatever to that proposed by the the Legislature of the nation itself, but the character of gentleman from Ohio being adopted. our free institutions. Mr. CARSON said it was due from him to the gentleYour own mind will suggest to you, no doubt, more man from Ohio to say that he should be among the last to suitable reflections than any thing which I can say could impute to that gentleman any improper motive in the convey. To those reflections I am prepared to trust, not proposed investigation. His former remarks had been doubting that, had you at the time considered the act of induced only by an acquaintance with the general princiviolence which you have committed, in the light in which ples of human nature. He presumed the gentleman it has been regarded by the House, you would have been would go as far as human nature could be expected to go

[blocks in formation]

under the circumstances in which he was placed, in endeavoring to decide with calmness and dispassionate feel. ing. He had made only a suggestion, and even that he now waived.

Mr. BOON moved, as an amendment, to strike out the select committee, and substitute the Committee on Indian Affairs as the committee to examine into the matter; and on that question he asked the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAWKINS, of North Carolina, moved that the resolution be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. CLAY expressed his hope that the gentleman) from North Carolina would consent to withdraw this motion, and let the whole subject be thoroughly investigated. Mr. HAWKINS replied that he had no objection to the investigation, but the loss of time it would occasion. At the request, however, of his friend from Alabama, he would withdraw his motion,

The question was now taken on Mr. Boox's motion to refer the subject to the Committee on Indian Affairs, instead of a select committee, and decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows: yeas 55, nays 125.

Mr. BLAIR, of South Carolina, moved, as an amendment, that the members of the committee be appointed by ballot; but the motion was negatived without a count; and The question being put on Mr. STANBERRY's resolution, it was agreed to.

[The following gentlemen were appointed by the Speaker to compose the committee:

Messrs. STANBERRY, DRAYTON, EVERETT, of Massachusetts, WAYNE, MUHLENBERG, WHITE, of Louisiana, and HUBBARD.]

ANOTHER BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

[MAY 14, 1832.

Mr. WICKLIFFE suggested to the gentleman from
Ohio, whether a better form of introducing this subject
would not be by addressing a letter to the Speaker.
Mr. COOKE said he had already stated the substance of
the case verbally, and did not think that necessary.
Mr. LAMAR withdrew his objection to the reading.
Mr. MERCER insisted that the paper be read.
Mr. POLK objected.

Mr. ARCHER remonstrated, and requested Mr. P. to withdraw his objection.

The CHAIR now pronounced the motion to be in order, inasmuch as it related to a breach of privilege, and was, therefore, a privileged question.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, insisted that the motion should be put in writing;

Which having been done,

The question on the reading was put and carried; and, thereupon, the letter from Dr. Davis, together with a written statement, by Mr. CooKE, of the circumstances connected with it, were read at the Clerk's table, as follows:

BROWN'S HOTEL, May 12, 1832.

SIR: During my examination before the House of Representatives, in the case of General Houston, you very impertinently asked, among other questions, my business in this city. Whilst the trial of General Houston was pending, I deferred calling on you for the explanation which I now demand through my friend, General Demitry. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient, E. S. DAVIS. Honorable E. COOKE.

In connexion with the foregoing note, I submit the following statement:

Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, rose, and said that he held in his hand a letter from a Dr. Davis, of South Carolina, one of On the trial of Samuel Houston for an assault on a memthe witnesses who had testified on the late trial of Samuel ber of this House, which has just terminated, a person by Houston, which had been presented to him by a person the name of E. S. Davis was examined as a witness on stating his name to be Alexander Demitry, of Louisiana, behalf of the accused, and, on his cross-examination, I as the friend of said Davis, which, together with the state- propounded to him several interrogatories. After he had ment of the facts connected with it, he asked leave to left the stand, and while on the floor of the House, he send to the Chair, that it might be read for the informa-said, apparently referring to myself, and in a tone of metion of the House. In submitting this request, Mr. C.nace, that "there will be another hauled up here" soon. said he wished it to be distinctly understood that, without On Saturday last the accompanying note was handed in the least waiving his personal rights as a member, or me by a person calling himself Alexander Demitry. To intending, in any manner, to compromit either the rights the persons, character, and calling of these individuals, I or constitutional powers of the House, it was nevertheless am an utter stranger.

not his purpose, individually, to claim the institution of Had I considered this a mere personal matter, I should any proceeding whatever on his own account, upon the have passed it by without this notice; but all the circumsubject-matter of that communication. Such had not stances of the case do, in my opinion, preclude the idea been his motives in presenting the letter; his personal that it is so. And connected, as this is, with other inrights formed no part of the object by which he was go. stances of attempts, by menace and violence, to overawe verned. Other and higher motives prompted him to this the members of this body, and curb the freedom of destep-motives, which, overlooking every consideration bate, I have thought it my duty, in behalf of the American of personal feeling and personal security, regard the very people, and especially that portion of them whom I repreexistence of this House, the inviolable rights of the people sent, to present this matter to the House. of this country, and the dignity and honor of this nation. Е. СООКЕ, The letter he understood to be according to the usual Representative from Ohio. forms of an original process in that court where the rights Mr. CRANE, of Ohio, moved the following resolution: and honor of the suitors were settled by the pistol and Resolved, That the communication of the honorable E. the dagger; a tribunal, the competency of whose jurisdic- COOKE, a member from Ohio, be referred to a select comtion he had never yet acknowledged, in whose forms of mittee, consisting of seven members, and that said compractice he was wholly uninstructed, and before whose mittee have power to send for persons and papers. authority, under this Government of laws, he would never Mr. C. referred to the former modes of proceeding bow.

Mr. LAMAR objected to the reading of the papers.

May 14, 1852.

adopted under the like circumstances, viz. by arrest, by summons, and by committee. He had concluded the last

Mr. COOKE thereupon moved that the rule be sus-mode the most fit on the present occasion. pended; on which question

Mr. DODDRIDGE demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. DICKSON said that he understood that the letter was brought forward as connected with the privileges of the House, and he suggested whether, in that case, it would come within the ordinary rule concerning the reading of papers.

Mr. BOON moved to lay the papers on the table, there, as he said, to sleep the sleep of death.

On this motion Mr. VINTON demanded the yeas and

nays.

They were ordered, and, on being taken, stood as follows: yeas 73, nays 96.

So the motion of Mr. Boox was rejected.

SE 3025

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

MAY 14, 1832.]

OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.

Another Breach of Privilege.

3026

[H. OF R.

Mr. JEWETT, of New York, objected to the resolu- undisturbed deliberations of their representatives; if memtion, as going, in its present shape, to attain nothing, and bers were not to be protected in the discharge of their proposed that it be amended so as to require the commit- official duty; if the House should determine to truckle to tee to report whether a contempt of the House had been committed or not.

Mr. CRANE briefly replied, and expressed himself willing to modify the resolution to meet the views of the gentleman.

Mr. JEWETT then further suggested that the committee should also inquire whether the interrogatory which had been put by the gentleman from Ohio to Dr. Davis, when a witness, had been justifiable or not. It was his own opinion that the interrogatory which had occasioned so much offence to the witness was irrelevant to the case, and liable to be understood as being an attempt to impose on the witness.

arbitrary power, and to disregard its own safety, dignity, and honor, it would be no longer a desirable place for him; and he, for one, should be disposed to resign a seat upon that floor, and go to a place where he would find both honor and protection in the bosom of his constituents. Mr. CRANE now presented his resolution in a modified form, requiring the committee to report the facts of the case, together with their opinion thereon.

Mr. JEWETT repeated his former objections, and insisted that the committee should report whether or no the dignity of the House had been infringed. As to the facts, the House was in possession of them from a statement which nobody doubted, made by the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WHITTLESEY thought the resolution included all that could be desired.

an important part of the transaction? The committee would give the House the whole story. The letter alone might be interpreted to mean little or nothing, but the threat put upon it a very intelligible construction.

Mr. CRANE was willing to modify in any way that would suit gentlemen, and effect the object.

Mr. TAYLOR hoped he would not modify; and
Mr. HOFFMAN hoped that he would.

Mr. COOKE vindicated the propriety of the interrogatory. It had been propounded while the witness was Mr. BURGES hoped the inquiry would be confined under cross-examination. Every lawyer must admit, at within as narrow limits as possible; but he should consider once, it was fairly within the rule. Its object had been it strange, indeed, to refer such a subject to a committee, to elicit the degree of intimacy, and the identity of object and not make it their first duty to put down the facts of and pursuits between Dr. Davis and Mr. Houston, and the case. Did the gentleman from New York intend to thence to bring home upon Dr. Davis the fact, if it existed, commit and conclude the House on the question of priviof his having participated in the outrage upon Mr. STAN- lege? He was willing the committee should give their opiBERRY. It was an every-day practice in courts of law, nion, but it would degrade the House to hold them conand the interrogatory, before it was propounded, had been cluded by the opinion of their own committee. approved by older and wiser heads than his. Indeed, the same practice had been sanctioned in more than one instance during the same trial. The House had inquired Mr. JEWETT still objected to it as not sufficiently deinto the object of Luther Blake's visit to the city, and also finite. The committee might give it as their opinion that of his departure from it, and nobody had objected to those the letter was impolite and ungentlemanly; but what the interrogatories as irrelevant. Mr. C. disclaimed all know- House wanted to know, was, whether it amounted to a ledge of Dr. D., and all personal hostility towards him. breach of privilege. Such a feeling had not been indulged, and should not be Mr. REED, of Massachusetts, observed that all the talk imputed to him. The interrogatory had been propound- had been about the letter; but did not gentlemen know ed after full deliberation, not with a view of doing injus- that the man who wrote that letter had previously uttered tice to the witness, but to elicit facts having an important a threat in that House, and did not that threat constitute bearing upon the investigation then before the House. The letter assailed him, not for an act done in his private or individual capacity, but for a duty performed, and a right exercised, as a public servant, which he had believed at the time, and still believes, to be clearly and incontestably within his official competency as a member of that House. Viewing it in this light, and premising that he did not come here to vindicate his own rights, or the rights of his constituents, by a resort to violence, but by a faithful and unintimidated discharge of his duties upon that floor, he had felt bound to present the matter to the House, as well to apprise its members of the system by which we were surrounded, as to make known to the people of this Union something of the circumstances under which their representatives were compelled to legislate upon the great and momentous interests of our common country. This Mr. POLK had hoped that the House would, that day, had been the extent of his original object in presenting have arrived at the discussion of the apportionment bill, the matter to the House. But since his honorable friend but it seemed they were to occupy all their time about and colleague from Ohio [Mr. CRANE] had brought the questions relating to their own dignity and privileges. It subject before the House in the shape of a resolution for was his opinion that the House had nothing to do with an inquiry, he could not but feel some solicitude to learn the present case, and he meant to submit a resolution whether the House was disposed to sanction such a state which, he trusted, would put an end to it. This Dr. Davis of things in a country pretending to be civilized, and in a had been a witness on the trial of General Houston. In Government boasting of its freedom and its laws. He that character he had thought himself under the protecwished to know, by a deliberate decision of that body, tion of the House; but, considering himself injured by an whether a member of that House was, or was not, liable interrogatory which had been put to him by the gentleman to be called to account and arraigned before an irrespon- from Ohio, he had written that gentleman a letter, desible tribunal, by any stranger at the metropolis, for the manding an explanation; which letter the member had now discharge of his public duty, and placed in a situation presented to the House. Whether this did or did not where he must either consent to abandon his principles, present a case of breach of privilege, the House was as to violate the laws of earth and heaven, and to meet his able then to determine as it ever would be. The gentlefellow-man in mortal combat, or expose himself to be man from Virginia, [Mr. DODDRIDGE,] however, had sigwaylaid and assailed by ruffians and assassins. The House nified that he knew nothing of the case, as the man was was the only tribunal to which he could or would appeal, not here, nor his counsel here. But why could not the and to them he would submit the decision of the question. gentleman have made that discovery in the case of General If the people were not to be protected in the free and Houston? The gentleman then relied upon the letter of

VOL. VIII.-190

Mr. DODDRIDGE said he was at a loss to know what the gentleman meant by the facts being admitted. The House had neither Dr. Davis nor his counsel here. Whether the facts amounted to a breach of privilege, or whether they admitted of being explained away or not, never would be before this House until a committee was empowered to investigate.

H. OF R.]

Another Breach of Privilege.

[MAY 14, 1832.

a member, and acted upon it. Why not rely upon it now? mentioned "Governor Houston;" not imputing to him an What was law in one month ought to be law in another intention of good or of evil. This, sir, was "the head month. Mr. P. had then objected, and proposed a com- and front of his offending" against Houston. Now, sir, mittee. But no; the gentleman insisted upon an arrest. for this offence, what were the series of outrages which But now he was for a committee, because neither Davis Houston committed against this House, in order to avenge nor his counsel were here. It was now proposed to raise himself of this mighty affront? Why, sir, in the first ina committee, and give them power to send for persons and stance, at the very first step which he took, he went as papers--a power of enormous extent. If Davis attended far as this Mr. E. S. Davis has gone, by sending to the on their summons, it was well; but if he should refuse, honorable gentleman from Ohio, while he was seated upon was it intended that the committee should coerce him? this floor, attending to the business of his constituents, a Was the House ready to go so far as to say, that asking a letter, which every gentleman knows was intended as the member to give an explanation of any act performed by foundation of a challenge. What was the next step, sir? him in the House was a violation of the privileges of the Why, sir, the next step was to prowl into this Hall, moved House? The letter which had been read was not a chal- by an impulse like some ferocious beast of prey. Yes, sir, lenge: it contained no invitation to mortal combat; even within these walls-in this sacred temple of the people, the member himself did not say that it involved a breach dedicated to liberty-yes, sir, even here, while the reof privilege. He had submitted it to the House, and had presentatives of the freemen of this nation were assembled, expressed himself as content with whatever the House and actually in session, transacting the business of the peoshould determine. The gentleman from Virginia was one ple, what was the deportment of this man? Why, sir, of those who had agreed with him in endeavoring to or within a few feet of that chair, in which you were then ganize what might be called a business party in the House. presiding over the deliberations of this House, if we are He regretted that the gentleman seemed desirous of im- to believe my colleague, [Mr. JoHNSON,] he gave vent to peding the progress of business by an inquiry like this. his vulgar and wicked feelings, by uttering most foul and Mr. P. concluded by moving that the subject be indefi-blasphemous imprecations against the honorable gentlenitely postponed.

Mr. McDUFFIE observed that it seemed to be the desire of the gentleman from Tennessee that the House should proceed in its business. If that were his wish, the best course he could take would be to let this case go at once to a committee.

man from Ohio. Yes, sir, my colleague told us upon oath that Houston swore that he would assail the gentleman from Ohio on this floor, in the midst of us, while we were engaged in doing the work of the people, our constituents. Yes, sir, with an impiousness rarely equalled by the most abandoned, he swore he would right the wrong wherever given, even if it were in the court of heaven." It was with the utmost difficulty that he could be restrained from executing this determination.

Mr. ARNOLD said he should vote for the motion to postpone the resolutions and all the proposed amendments indefinitely. He said, in giving this vote, he presumed he should be actuated by motives and considerations widely What was the next step, sir? Why, the next thing we different from those which had actuated his colleague in hear is, that this bullying ruffian had waylaid the gentlemaking the motion. He said the vote he was about to man from Ohio in the night time, and knocked him on give was a very painful one; but, every thing considered, the head with a murderous bludgeon, beat him to the he believed it was the best disposition which could be earth, and, after he was down, he continued his more than made of the resolution of the honorable gentleman from brutal violence, until he broke some of his bones, and Ohio, [Mr. CRANE.] He said he had declared, by his vote, filled him with bruises from the crown of his head to the in the case which had just then received its finale, that the sole of his foot. Nay, more, sir, he beat the honorable House had the power to punish for breaches of its privi- member from Ohio until a by-stander thought he was dead. leges; and, as he was now about to give a vote which might This, sir, is a brief statement of facts, and is a dim picture look as though he had changed his opinion, and abandon- of the violence which a ruffian has inflicted upon one of ed the grounds upon which he had heretofore acted, he ourselves for words spoken in debate, upon my friend. begged the House to indulge him while he briefly stated Sir, I say my friend, for such I considered him before this the reasons which should govern his vote in the present unfortunate affair, and I will not abandon him now, alcase. Mr. A. said that he doubted not the constitutional though I have seen a caricature exhibited within these right of that House to punish for breaches of privilege. I walls, representing him lying on his back in the sewer, believe, sir, said Mr. A., that the efficiency, nay, the very with the words put into his mouth by Senator BUCKNER, existence of this House, as a deliberative body, depends upon that right, and upon a stern and rigid exercise of the power which that right confers. Nor have I any doubt, sir, that the facts of this case, as brought to the notice of the House by the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. COOKE,] amount to a breach of the constitutional privileges of this House; that the letter, if not a challenge in form, was one in substance, and, when connected with the threats, no man could doubt it was intended to intimidate and overawe a member in the discharge of his duty to the people who had sent him there. The letter was a challenge to all intents and purposes, for overawing and intimidating the honorable gentleman from Ohio, and was so intended to be understood by the writer and the bearer. But, sir, after the proceedings of this House in the case of Houston, I ask gentlemen to say what ought to be done in this case. Will gentlemen permit me to run a parallel Now, sir, what has been the punishment which this between the two cases, by briefly noticing some of the House has thought proper to inflict in this case? Why, most prominent facts of each case? What then are the sir, after admitting the accused to be defended by counsel, facts in Houston's case? The honorable gentleman from who stood up before us here from day to day, and reOhio, [Mr. STANBERRY,] in the discharge of his solemn proached us to our very teeth, we then permitted the rufduty to his constituents, in a speech on that floor, in which fian himself to take a stand, not at the bar of the House, be questioned the integrity of others, had incidentally but upon the floor, and, even from the desk of an honora

imploring mercy at the hands of one who never, in my opinion, felt its generous throb. Sir, it is the proudest boast of my life that I have never deserted a friend, and I have had the good fortune scarcely ever to have been deserted by a friend. In the hour of darkest adversity we cling closest together. The wretch who would desert his friend when difficulties and dangers thicken upon him, is unworthy of friendship. The common dictates of humanity would forbid that I should witness the scene which Senator BUCKNER described, without interposing to stop it. Sir, I would not have permitted one dog thus to have worried another.

[Here Mr. BOON rose to a question of order. He said he desired to know if General Houston was now on trial. The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Tennessee was in order.]

MAY 14, 1832.]

Another Breach of Privilege.

[H. OF R.

ble member, he bullied, he threatened us, and denied our er's chair. And if I should resist, sir, as I shall probably right to punish him for what he had done. I ask again, do, if not killed at once, I expect it will raise a very sewhat was the punishment which this House thought pro-rious question whether he or I shall be expelled from the per to inflict after all this? Why, sir, a gentle reprimand! House. Sir, I am free to confess that I do not feel safe A reprimand which a tender and sensitive schoolboy in the chair where I sit. A Spanish stiletto might easily would scarcely have felt, even if pronounced by the stern-be slipped under my ear while I was busily engaged in est pedagogue, with birch in hand, much less the harden- attending to the affairs of my constituents, and my jugu ed wretch who has just been turned loose upon society. lar vein might be sluiced. You would see the blood flow, Sir, what is the case before us? Why, it is just such a sir, but you would not be able to detect the hand that case as Houston's would have been, even if he had stop- had perpetrated the deed. Sir, I consider this man who ped after taking the first step--to wit, sending the letter. is thus permitted to pollute this proud edifice, which was I put the question to gentlemen, then, to say what mea- wont to be considered the temple of liberty, a perfect sure of punishment they can inflict on this poor, miserable outlaw. I consider him ready to perpetrate any crime in instrument, for his offence, while upon Houston, for all the whole catalogue of human villany. his enormities and lawless outrages, we have said you shall Sir, I consider the proceedings in Houston's case as a be reprimanded by the Speaker. And permit me to say, license to every ruffian in the land to come here, and for sir, that Davis is a citizen of the United States. He any offence which he may choose to allege against one of comes from a section of the country where duelling is the people's representatives, whether that offence be real common. I do hold this to be some palliation. But, if I or feigned; I say, sir, I consider it as an invocation to the am correctly informed, Houston is not a citizen of the whole band of ruffians and assassins who are now congreUnited States, but belongs to the Cherokee nation be- gated in this city, and propelled by a power, somewhere, yond the Arkansas. We do not know, sir, that Davis almost irresistible, and who are to be seen at all hours will take any further steps. But, sir, suppose him to have prowling the streets and almost obstructing the portals to done already every thing which the duelling code autho- the capitol, to strike down, to inflict any sort of violence rizes. Suppose the gentleman from Ohio, for considera- upon the members of this House, who dare to raise their tions satisfactory to himself, had refused to fight him after voice in support of the constitution and laws of the land. being challenged, and Davis had posted him in the usual Sir, what are the facts? The record in Houston's case—— form. Would this have reached Houston's case? No, the judgment of this House, which I consider a triumphsir. Suppose the gentleman from Ohio had accepted the ant acquittal, was scarcely dry before a similar outrage challenge, and had entered into mortal combat with him, was set on foot by one of his particular friends and assoand had been badly wounded. Would that have been an ciates. Houston was acquitted late on Friday night, and equal case? No, sir. Suppose he, in mortal combat, the very next day this E. S. Davis sent a note to the gen had killed the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. COOKE.] Then I tleman from Ohio, demanding satisfaction for words utterbelieve it would be decided by a large majority of this House ed upon this floor, and which it was his imperious duty to that we could take no jurisdiction of the case at all. So, utter. I say, sir, Houston was triumphantly acquitted, sir, that would be no case at all. We are then, sir, dri-for I consider the reprimand as amounting to nothing in ven into this dilemma by the decision which we have the way of punishment. So this man, E. S. Davis, conmade in Houston's case, to wit, that for the most brutal siders it. Nothing could gratify him more than to be violence upon a member's person, for waylaying in the taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and to pass night, knocking him down, breaking his bones, and leav-through the forms of trial which his "honorable friend" ing life in him merely, and that evidently inore by acci-had passed. To be reprimanded merely, sir, to him dent than design, the offender is to receive a reprimand. would be glory. He would imagine himself on the pinIf the member be killed, then we have nothing to donacle of fame. I am for doing him no such honor. with it. This having been the decision of the House, af- It must be evident to every man that we have brought ter many weeks' debate, I have determined to vote all this difficulty on ourselves. If we had acted prompt. against bringing any other case before this House.

ly and efficiently, we might have put a stop to this system What more have we done, sir? Why, we have voted of outrage and violence. Nothing short of incarceration that this very man shall not be excluded from among us: in my opinion will do it. A majority of the House are this man who has shown himself so utterly regardless of opposed to that. I therefore consider that we, the mithe honor and dignity of this House-who has shown him- nority, are wholly defenceless, and that every bully that self so perfectly reckless of the privileges of the people's chooses can chastise us in his own way with perfect impurepresentatives-nay, sir, who has violated the constitu- nity. tion, and trampled the laws of the land under foot, that Í consider this a momentous and fearful crisis in our he, sir, shall still be permitted to enter this Hall during the affairs; and notwithstanding I feel that I am exposed to hours of legislation, and to mingle with us as one of our the pistol, to the dirk, to the bludgeon of the assassin, I equals: that he shall be permitted to prowl round our will, at the hazard of my life, speak, and speak freely, of seats, with pistols in his belt, with dirks and Spanish men and of measures, whenever the good of my country knives in his bosom, and bludgeons in his hands. Sir, requires it. Sir, the grand object for which my constituafter the decision of this House in this case, I am prepared ents sent me here, was to be watchful in guarding the to see any thing. [Here the SPEAKER reminded the liberty and rights of the people. How am I to do that, gentleman from Tennessee that it was not in order to re- sir, if my voice is to be stifled by bullies and bravos? flect upon the proceedings of the House.] No, sir! I had sooner bare my bosom to the poniard of Mr. A. resumed. He said, after Houston had been the assassin; I had sooner he would strike it to my heart, informed by a vote of the House what punishment was and cause life's warm gush to flow in the gutters of your considered adequate for knocking a member down and streets; I had sooner my blood should be lapped by the breaking his bones--after he has not only been held guilt- dogs of the city, than I would cease through fear to vinless by many members upon this floor, but has been pub-dicate the rights and liberties of my constituents. licly and openly advocated for what he had done, by Mr. STANBERRY now rose, and said that he had, on a members upon this floor-members, sir, have said, within former occasion, declared that the President of the Unitmy hearing, that "Houston deserved the thanks of this ed States had encouraged assaults of this nature, and House for what he had done." After these things, I shall there was not a gentleman on the floor who had ventured not be surprised if he should undertake to pistol me--to to contradict the assertion. He had offered, at that time, dirk me-to bludgeon me, within three feet of the Speak- to prove it-he now reiterated that offer--he was pre

« AnteriorContinuar »